I clicked the last option. I think just giving the choice of this last option shows a certain amount of lofty detachment.....The usual liberal options are: Do you disagree with me because you are: 1) stupid 2 evil 3) in the pay of the oil companies.

Left, right and center only have meaning in relation to a fixed point. The essence of the Althouse vortex is that there is no fixed point in her rotational universe. Fixed points, the singularity that so interests Instapundit, do not arise in Vortexville.

No, Althouse's criticisms have been mostly about about finer points of law, tactics, perception and media hands overplayed.

I mostly agreed with them.

But I did object to Althouse taking Stacey McCain (who I'm no fan of) to task for being sexist.

I thought McCain did a fair job of explaining why the Democrats didn't want to notice Fluke's testimony. McCain made his point in the context of what Althouse said should be the focus of the debate -- costs imposed by health insurance mandates -- as it related to Fluke's prior scholarly advocacy of mandatory insurance coverage for sexual reassignment.

Instead, I suspected Althouse that morning was put-off by Dr. Helen Smith's post, as I was too, but Althouse couldn't hang the sexist tag on her so she unfairly hit McCain in order to tell the broad swath of commentators on the right to cool it.

A little unfair displacement and playing of the sexism card in my opinion.

"Althouse excels at sharp perceptions seen from the middle or some intriguingly aloof position, except that as a presidential election nears she becomes more and more likely to line up with her team, the Democrats."

Althouse is like the south pole: a fixed point in a world constantly adrift. When the political climate drifts leftward, Althouse appears to move rightward, and vice versa. But she isn't moving. She's too stubborn to move.

I haven't noticed any particular drift leftward... or any new ideological tendency, any marked change of direction. What brought this on?

She is and remains recognizably Althouse. She goes her way. I don't really see her as "left" or "right"-- but she's not "bland" "middle of the road" either. If I had to locate her political coordinates, very roughly, I'd say fiscal (and foreign policy) center-right, social liberal. But in the end she's impossible to pin down politically because she's a master of critique, rarely engages in positive advocacy or ideological exposition. (Not a bad thing; IMO it's one of her strengths as a blogger.) So I'll go with the last option.

Althouse is not an ideological voter so much as a pragmatic one. While she may fall for the lure of Obamanian "pragmatism" again, if she's looking for pragmatism, seems to me Romney the ultracompetent businessman would be her guy. So if forced to bet today on how she'll vote in November, if Romney's the GOP nominee, I'd say Romney over Obama-- but that may be based on projection. She's shocked me before (2008) and might well do so again. Anyway, I expect plenty of cruel neutrality through the general campaign (as we've seen through the primaries) and then, all bets are off.

I'm so looking forward to an Althouse "how Obama lost me" post (that could be so epic; please, merciful Zeus, make it so). But I'm also steeling myself for the possible "how Romney lost me". I guess we'll see!

I can't vote for any of those. I vote for "Althouse is human and there are some issues which she is wrong on due to personal factors, and on those issues she is usually too far to the left for me, but I understand it."

Notice the tacit claim that "modern" is a boon to which all good people should aspire. G.K. Chesterton observed that "[e]very one of the popular modern phrases and ideals is a dodge in order to shirk the problem of what is good. We are fond of talking about 'liberty'; that, as we talk of it, is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good. We are fond of talking about 'progress'; that is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good. … The modern man says…, 'Away with your old moral formulae; I am for progress.' This, logically stated, means, 'Let us not settle what is good; but let us settle whether we are getting more of it.'" The most optimistic thing that one can say about people who fret about whether a person or thing is adequately modern is that it, too, is one of Chesterton's dodges. It's a thought-terminating cliche. In the twentieth century, the arrogance of "modern" architecture created unspeakably ugly buildings, and the arrogance of "modern" politics and morality killed millions of people in the name of creating systems that were "modern." If the worst that can be said for Rick Santorum is that he does not belong to the modern age—to the age of caddish behavior and easy moral depravity, to the age of the mass murder of children, to the age of moral relativism, to the age of quickie divorce and kim kardishan, to the age of slutty law students and classless politicians, to the age of "Lil' Wayne," to the age of sagging pants and baseball caps worn backwards, etc. ad nauseum—that might be thought to be praising with exceedingly faint damnations.

"Andy R. said... Has the Republican party demonstrated that they are batshit insane and completely unqualified to govern this country?

"Are all of their candidates a joke, even Romney at this point?

"Has Althouse noticed this and drawn the obvious conclusions?

'Would we expect Althouse to every say anything nice about a party that is as racist and sexist and homophobic as the Republicans are?

'These questions answer themselves.

3/8/12 1:29 PM

'Spoken from a knee-jerk supporter of Obama. You never fail to demonstate just what a tool you are."

Hardly.

Andy R.'s observations about the Republicans are plainly true, but it doesn't take a "knee-jerk Obama supportor" to state it...I loathe Obama, didn't vote for him and won't vote for him. He's a war criminal and he is presiding over the continuing expansion and consolidation of a police state here in America.

I notice Charles Johnson Language in your posts. That seems similar to me. He let extreme trolls influence his political perceptions to the extend he lost his mooring and began to drift. People do that.

It's just a desire to find a balanced focus in a political world. A focus that is productive and creative and moves people. If you want to move people you have to assume the role of heretic at some times and take the floggings. People will eventually wake up to be better thinkers.

You are strong in a lot of new thought. I though the Co-ed railing was pretty weak. But again, artists paint and paint and never reach the perfection in their mind.

What is left? Does it mean sinister? IMO left is wanting change with reasoned thought. Extreme left is wanting change with little thought, Radical left is change with no thought to consequences. Obama falls into the Extreme left.

The right is the people who want to hold onto traditions over change. With the same degrees.

The middle is mostly people with no time to be informed as they are forced into wage slavery to support their crazy radical siblings who waste away in pissing matches.

IMO left is wanting change with reasoned thought. Extreme left is wanting change with little thought, Radical left is change with no thought to consequences. Obama falls into the Extreme left.

The right is the people who want to hold onto traditions over change. With the same degrees.

This plane you describe leaves out the elephant in the room (no pun), that is, the means of achieving that change. The further left you go on a given issue, whether it's carefully reasoned or not, the more you're willing to use coercive government power to affect that change, all the way to tyranny. The further right, less so all the way to anarchy.

A right of center country mostly want to be left alone to make their own decisions (smaller government) and don't mind obeying reasonable laws and paying reasonable taxes.

We are speaking of a person of the left who, like many, has been mugged by reality and disgusted with the actions of others on the left. This has led, on the surface, to the appearance of becoming more moderate, if not conservative, on some matters. But this is superficial.

When push comes to shove -- as it has in recent weeks -- the inner lib/leftist comes out. She might have disappointment and disillusionment at leftism, but her antipathy and irrational prejudice against those on the right far exceeds any real change as an ultimate intellectual matter.

We have seen it with the knee-jerk lashing out, unhinged from reason or facts, with contempt and occasional animus that rivals AndyR. And one can insist that, no, this is just cruel neutrality, this is just playing devil's advocate, this is just being too cute by half, but the truth is that this is the real deal. Passive-aggressive, maybe, but this is the real inner her.

Perhaps she is sincere in her belief that she might vote Republican this time around. But that does not necessarily make one a moderate, much less a move toward the right. One can lie to herself and do that. No, better a Stalin or Mao or Ho Chi Minh be elected than anyone who might be authentically conservative, especially if she or he be a social conservative.

She might be embarrassed at the actions of her comrades, but in her heart she is still a fellow traveler. Which just makes it all the more irrational because there is a large part of her that sees and knows how intellectually corrupt and disasterous the left is.

Notice the tacit claim that "modern" is a boon to which all good people should aspire. G.K. Chesterton observed that "[e]very one of the popular modern phrases and ideals is a dodge in order to shirk the problem of what is good. We are fond of talking about 'liberty'; that, as we talk of it, is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good. We are fond of talking about 'progress'; that is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good. … The modern man says…, 'Away with your old moral formulae; I am for progress.' This, logically stated, means, 'Let us not settle what is good; but let us settle whether we are getting more of it.'" The most optimistic thing that one can say about people who fret about whether a person or thing is adequately modern is that it, too, is one of Chesterton's dodges. It's a thought-terminating cliche. In the twentieth century, the arrogance of "modern" architecture created unspeakably ugly buildings, and the arrogance of "modern" politics and morality killed millions of people in the name of creating systems that were "modern." If the worst that can be said for Rick Santorum is that he does not belong to the modern age—to the age of caddish behavior and easy moral depravity, to the age of the mass murder of children, to the age of moral relativism, to the age of quickie divorce and kim kardishan, to the age of slutty law students and classless politicians, to the age of "Lil' Wayne," to the age of sagging pants and baseball caps worn backwards, etc. ad nauseum—that might be thought to be praising with exceedingly faint damnations.

I personally always thought this was a tough crowd to be trolling for a laugh from.

To settle the question, it would be interesting and entertaining to analyze a sample of your (Ann's) handwriting. If you're bold(!) and courageous(!), post an everyday sample (ie your normal handwriting) and I'll do a quick analysis in comments suitable for public view.

"My comrades on the left." I like that. ~My comrades they all loved me wellJolly, saucy crewA few hard cases I will recall Though they were all brave and trueI wander round from town to townJust like a rovin' signAnd everyone says there goes Tom MooreFrom the days of '49~

I can't vote because there's no accurate choice for me. Rather than "blandly" wandering in the middle (A portrayal I like because it shows Ann sees her agenda-mongering as passive) I see Ann more like someone playing those driving video games for the first time, who loses control on the right turns to repeatedly crash the road's left railing. And, just like in a video game, she just starts over like it never happened, hitting the gas - HARD!

phx - why do you lump me in with ALL the right wing as though we're just some gigantic gelatinous blob/mass? Is it easier that way for your feeble little mind?

Did NOT you big poopyhead!

Alex I don't have any idea where you stand on ANY particular issue. I think you are on the right though you love to lambaste them at least as much as you love to lambaste lefty AndyR (got some kind of flirty thing going there, sailor? get in line behind some of the others).

But apparently it's okay for you to refer to my "comrades on the left" - like a typical dumbass would, and just when I think you might have some smarts, too.

"I don't get it, there is nothing moderate about Obama except his tone of voice. Does Althouse equate moderate tone of voice to moderate policy making?"

You're right. As with our previous recent (and not-so-recent)presidents, Obama is immoderate in satisfying the prerogatives of the military/industrial/corporate/financial/complex and their implacable drive for more, More, MORE.

Politically, he is neither left nor right; he is simply, expedient, brutal, and at the service of the elites who own this country. In this, he is no different than his predecessors.

You always go to the left when it comes to women's rights, gay rights, or multicultural rights. It's just that we've had a lot of issues of that ilk arise recently: the flap over Fluke (she had the sense of humor of a rhinocerous); and then the Bam vid on the topic of Derek Bell. Santorum gets you going too because you're not religious and he offends your other interests as represented above.

Ann is still Liberal (rather than Lefty) on social issues, but trending Conservative on almost everything else (how hawkish she might be on foreign policy I can't say, but she went for Dubya over Lurch so you can do the math any way you want) and I believe Conservative on fiscal matters.

"Politically, he is neither left nor right; he is simply, expedient, brutal, and at the service of the elites who own this country. In this, he is no different than his predecessors."

Oh, the humanity! Oh, the disappointment!

A hard-leftist with a passing familiarity with C. Wright Mills would, within reason, assess Obama this way; as compared to the American electorate, Obama clearly ran on a decidedly left-of-center platform, albeit obviously not leftist.

I suppose for the true believer, the threshold test for Socialism is outright nationalizing of the means of production; simply settling for how every aspect of business is conducted per federal regulations and allowing the vassals, er, "owners" to keep some share of the profits doesn't pass the test, and laughably makes those in power "expedient, brutal, and (in) the service of the elites who own this country.

You obviously mean that as sarcasm, but you make one fatal error. We cannot be embarrassed by our opponents. We can be embarrassed only by our comrades (and ourselves).

Althorse has no "comrades on the right" because she is neither on the right nor of the right. Her better sense tells her conservatism is right, but her treasured self-image is that of a child of the Sixties and an accepted member of the liberal professoriate.

In cases of conflict -- which is what generated this “poll” -- the hippie professor will ultimately trump her better sense. You’ll never go broke covering that bet. Any conservative who takes Althorse to be a comrade is a seriously mistaken conservative.

hmm, this thread is Althouse going to see a pedestrian psychiatrist for free lol.

Bottom line, she panders to her flock, which are mostly conservative, regardless of her ever changing political ideology, real or imagined. So, in essence, she's a lot like her boy, mittens :-P ... except that mittens is clueless re: politics!

And Althouse knows exactly who she is, whereas mittens is still searchin' for an identity ...

I get this strong feeling of insecurity. What a good way to stroke a bruised ego then have your readers fight and fawn over you. But the true question is how many advertisers have you lost........ I think your having a "Rush" moment.

shiloh - you're absolutely full of shit. You blast this blog because allegedly it has a huge tilt towards conservatives, but when I ask for a list of moderate blogs you can't deliver. Typical liberal, big mouth.

It is tough to let go of the residue of one's former life. Even after knowing that what went before is untenable and unsustainable, still there is a tendency to cling to some part of it, to keep some measure of it in reserve. Even when one knows it to be wrong, still that is what is comfortable, and it is tough to let go of it. Much safer to stick with the devil you know then to risk the unknown, especially if you erroneously think that you do know what you really do not know and further erroneously think it to be not only wrong but the greatest evil ever, thereby justifing your animosity.

That is what makes it all so irrational. But there is still hope. While difficult, such is not necessarily a permanent condition.

True conversion (from the Latin for "turning with") is possible. But it requires letting go. And a sincere desire for truth.

You have to just let that residue go. Crede ut intelligas. Believe so that you might understand.

Bender's psychiatric gobbledygook notwithstanding, Althouse probably remembers the wonderful years from 2001 to 2008 ie cheney/bush and rather than apprehensive of the unknown, she is mindful of the current Republican political reality.

Sadly, shiloh, you too are one of those who are so ignorant and utterly clueless that you don't even know how much you don't know a damn thing.

You are like the gallon jug that has a few drops of water in it, but arrogantly thinking that you are over-filled to the brim.

Althouse at least has much more than a few drops, such that there is something there to work with, but too much of what she thinks she knows, she is actually either totally ignorant about or she gets it backasswards wrong.

And such ignorance and blindness to the truth is rather destructive and a hindrance. It is hard to get to where you really want to be when you have a blindfold on or when you otherwise prefer the darkness. Better to take off the blindfold and come into the light because only the truth will make one free. But first one must admit to herself that she is wearing a blindfold and wandering around in the dark.

You don't have to be a liberal to believe Breitbart, while a fascinating character, was not the conservative icon he's being made out to be.

And certainly you don't have to be a liberal to perceive that the tape hardly contains the stuff that would have turned the 2008 election or will turn the 2012 election.

Ann might be thinking that her common-sense reaction to Breitbart and his works means she is leaning left. Well, it could mean that, but it also could mean that she's discerning in her choice of conservative pundits and conservative meta-events.

Oh, and I should throw in Limbaugh too. She listens to him way more than even most conservatives do. However, because I was stuck in a prison camp, I listened to him in 2011 way more than I had since Limbaugh's early days. He's sustaining himself as an enterprise purely on his past reputation. I snort when I hear people defend him as "merely an entertainer" because as opposed to the early 1990s, there is nothing entertaining about Rush now. He is the quintessential complaining old man, rigid in his views, incredibly arrogant and closed-minded, backward-looking and totally unfunny. This tumble he's taken, he's been riding for a long time. He needs to retire.

And this is the period during which Ann has been most exposed to him, somehow finding three hours a day for his podcast. If I had to do that, I'd be much more liberal now, just out of distaste for his constant, ugly rap. Even the 1-2 hours a day I could usually find for him caused me to shift a bit leftward.

But in the end, ideas are not about who embraces them. We are not teenagers. You can be conservative, or like me semi-conservative RINO without the R, and take note when circus performers like Breitbart or aging radio jocks like Limbaugh offend you or take positions to the right of where you are, and still not become a leftist. I suspect that's Ann right now -- reexamining her beliefs in a low period for conservatism, but not necessarily ditching them.

Pointing out to you, shiloh, that you don't know what you are talking about is not a personal attack on the messenger (even here you show your ignorance), but is an exhortation for the messenger to enlighten himself before he speaks, for his own benefit, if not for others.